A view of the Supreme Court.
| Photo Credit: File
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (March 10, 2026) orally observed that it would be better to defer to Parliament’s wisdom to bring a Uniform Civil Code rather than judicially strike down the Shariat Application Act, 1937 on the ground of discrimination for giving Muslim women a smaller share of family inheritance compared with their male counterparts.
The 1937 law established Islamic law for inheritance among Indian Muslims, providing widows with children a one-eighth share, or a further reduced one-fourth share if they do not have children, and daughters half of a son’s share.
Appearing before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner Poulomi Pavini Shukla, challenged what he called “artificial discrimination” between Muslim women and men regarding their right to inheritance.
The Bench, however, posed a practical question of law, asking which law would govern Muslim inheritance if the Shariat Act were struck down.
Mr. Bhushan responded that the more secular Indian Succession Act could apply. He referred to the landmark judgment in Mary Roy vs State of Kerala, in which the petitioner, the mother of Booker Prize-winning author Arundhati Roy, successfully fought for equal inheritance rights for Syrian Christian women in the State, nullifying the discriminatory Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1916.
“Does the Indian Succession Act apply to Muslim women? Remember, when you strike an Act, you create a vacuum… In our over-anxiety for reforms, we may deprive them [Muslim women] of whatever they are getting now,” the Chief Justice said.
Justice Bagchi asked whether it would be wiser to defer to Parliament’s wisdom to realise the aspiration expressed in Article 44 of the Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution, which states that the State shall endeavour to secure for citizens a Uniform Civil Code across the country.
“Look, you are talking about inheritance. But the basic equality of a one man-one woman relationship, a monogamous existence, has it been realised throughout the country? No. Can we declare all bigamous relationships bound by personal law as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution? We have to defer to the wisdom of the legislature to bring the DPSP into reality,” Justice Bagchi observed.
Mr. Bhushan submitted that the Supreme Court, as guardian of the Constitution, could not point to other issues to deny or defer relief in a specific matter such as inheritance rights for Muslim women.
“After all, advancements and reform are incremental,” Mr. Bhushan said.
Justice Bagchi also observed that even if the court struck down the statutory provisions of the 1937 Act, inheritance customs that predated the Constitution might continue to survive as personal law under Article 372.
He urged the three-judge Bench to refer the case to a Constitution Bench. He said the court had earlier not hesitated to strike down triple talaq, which involved a more religious issue. Inheritance or the right of succession was not part of an essential religious practice concerning which the court should be wary of adjudication.
“Inheritance is a civil right,” Mr. Bhushan submitted.
The Chief Justice asked whether he was suggesting that the court strike down the Shariat Act and effectively re-legislate.
Mr. Bhushan responded that the court could adopt either of two alternatives. It could bring Muslim women under the Indian Succession Act or declare that the Shariat Act provisions on inheritance violated Article 14.
The court agreed to list the case and gave Mr. Bhushan time to make alterations to the petition.
Published – March 10, 2026 04:01 pm IST
